NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARYRepublic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila AM No. 03-05-01- SC Adopting the New Codeof Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary Whereas, at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace, the Hague, on 25-26 November 2002, at which the PhilippineSupreme Court was represented by the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, theBangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the Judicial Group on StrengtheningJudicial Integrity was deliberated upon and approved after incorporating therein severalamendments; Whereas, the Bangalore Draft, as amended, is intended to be the UniversalDeclaration of Judicial Standards applicable in all judiciaries; Whereas, the Bangalore Draft isfounded upon a universal recognition that a competent, independent and impartial judiciary isessential if the courts are to fulfill their role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law; thatpublic confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary isof utmost importance in a modern democratic society; and that it is essential that judges,individually and collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a public trust and strive toenhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system; Whereas, the adoption of the universaldeclaration of standards for ethical conduct of judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft as revisedat the Round Table Conference of Chief Justices at the Hague is imperative not only to updateand correlate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted for thePhilippines, but also to stress the Philippines’ solidarity with the universal clamor for a universalcode of judicial ethics. Now, therefore, the Court hereby adopts this New Code of JudicialConduct for the Philippine Judiciary. CANON 1 INDEPENDENCE Judicial independence is aprerequisite to the rule of law and the fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall thereforeuphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.SECTION 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of te
law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. SEC 2. In performing judicial duties, Judges shall beindependent from judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to makeindependently. SEC 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency. SEC 4. Judges shallnot allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. Theprestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influencethe judge. SEC 5. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, andinfluence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to befree therefrom to a reasonable observer. SEC 6. Judges shall be independent in relation tosociety in general and in relation to the particular parties to a dispute which he or she has toadjudicate. SEC 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicialduties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the judiciary. SEC 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of conduct in order to reinforcepublic confidence in the judiciary which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicialindependence. CANON 2 INTEGRITY Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges. SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure thatnot only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of areasonable observer. SEC 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faithin the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.SEC 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or courtpersonnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.
CANON 3 IMPARTIALITY Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. Itapplies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice. SEC 2.Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances theconfidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary. SEC 3. Judges shall, so far as reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimizethe occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or decidingcases. SEC 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or could come before,them make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of suchproceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment inpublic or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue. SEC 5. Judges shalldisqualify themselves from participation in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide thematter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable todecide the mater impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where (a)The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputedevidentiary facts concerning the proceedings; (b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or wasa material witness in the matter in the controversy; (c) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy; (d) The judge servedas executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or aformer associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein; (e) The judge’s ruling a lower court is the subject of review; (f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or tocounsel within the fourth civil degree; or (g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has afinancial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter incontroversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantiallyaffected by the outcome of the proceedings; SEC. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may,instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of thedisqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers independently of judge’sparticipation, all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial,the judge may
of 00
new code
899 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 07/02/2009 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment